5 ms·
Of course they did. And they'll keep doing it, because they can. And because knowledge like that is power, and they like power. At this point, you can safely
by Syonyk 4y ago
Of course they did. And they'll keep doing it, because they can. And because knowledge like that is power, and they like power.
At this point, you can safely assume that anything muttered by a "tin foil hat nutter" sort in about 2005-2010 about the internet, computers, three letter agencies, and the like is correct. It's sure heading in that direction.
- LesZedCB 4y agogood thing everything is hidden cleverly behind this impenetrable username!
- dylan604 4y agocome now, we all now that you have to stand in front of a mirror holding your ID next to your face to take an image to send to dang to prove who you really are before hiding behind that anonymous username. and there's no way that dang stored those images on a bucket that accidentally got misconfigured to have public access. /s
- mattpallissard 4y ago> At this point, you can safely assume that anything muttered by a "tin foil hat nutter" sort in about 2005-2010 about the internet, computers, three letter agencies, and the like is correct. As one of the few software/tech guys for hundreds of miles I get a lot of "I suspect they're doing X, but that's probably not even possible". In regards to BigBrother/BigCo. I correct them all. Not possible, probable.
- dylan604 4y agowait, are you saying "but that's not even possible" should be s/possible/probable/ in that statement, or trying to say that not only is it possible but probable that they are doing it?
- mattpallissard 4y agoPoor grammar in my part. Not only is it possible, it's probable.
- th15row 4y agoI had no doubts about it. We're heading to a very grim future.
- tptacek 4y agoThis isn't at all true. For instance, during Snowdonia, it was an article of faith on HN that NSA had a portal they could log into to pop a shell on Google's servers, when in fact what it turned out they had was a crappy web portal that they used to submit FISA directives. It would be more accurate to say that these concerns are directionally correct, but that the particulars matter a lot.
- woolion 4y agoI think it's safe to say GP has an opinion of what a "tin foil hat nutter" is, which is reasonable with regards to documented reality. However, there are a number of people who poison the well with absurd claims such as "NSA can break all encryption with quantum computers, so you might as well use unencrypted chats on Whatsapp using Windows". So of course such claims are bogus; documents show that what they do is find ways around the encryption, through bugs or architectural gaps.
- passing_by_and 4y agoWhy do you speak with such certainty? How can you possibly know if anything you just said is accurate?
- heisshill 4y agoDon't bother, hes a pro government shill with an upvote brigade and special privileges here on HN. HN is largely astro turfed and bringkng that up results in bans because its against the guidelines. The mods lie all the time about this stuff.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]